Chapter 21

Wargame Campaigns

Playing wargame scenarios in isolation is always very entertaining, but players will eventually want to provide a context for such encounters. This is where a wargames campaign comes in, when two armies fight over a period for control of their respective territories.

The key to any wargames campaign is feasibility. It is all too tempting to produce detailed maps of the campaign territories (either based on genuine atlases, or lovingly rendered by the designer of the game), and devise detailed rules for forced marching, attrition, sieges, delaying actions, pursuit after battle, promotion of units to elite status, raw militia and reinforcements. Such campaigns are not always practical, having as they do a tendency to drown in excessive detail; they are also liable to take a very long time to resolve. This is not to say that they should never be attempted, since campaigns of this ilk can promote a very rich and rewarding experience for players who have the necessary commitment: they are therefore best suited to people who are so fascinated by the period in question, that they are prepared to devote themselves entirely to it – without being seduced by other historical epochs, or the dictates of the latest wargames fashion. Few players have the necessary endurance or devotion in practice; many are attracted by the notion of a detailed and protracted campaign, but most will drift away after just a few gaming sessions.

A simple campaign is in contrast eminently achievable, and can still be rewarding if done in the right way. The easiest approach is to play an odd number of battles, with the winner of the majority being declared victorious in the campaign. Players could, for example, select three favourite scenarios from the thirty provided in the last chapter, dicing to see who plays Red or Blue at the start of each. This campaign can easily be finished in a long evening, or a half day session at the weekend – the brevity of the games combined with the fact that favourite scenarios are being played, should guarantee interest.

An alternative approach is to generate the relevant scenarios at random. The players could for example decide to play five games, which are determined on the basis of dividing the thirty scenarios into five groups, covering numbers 1–6, 7–12, 13–18, 19–24, and 25–30. One game is played within each grouping of scenarios, with each selected at random. Let us assume for example that a game is being played from scenarios 7–12: this is chosen by rolling a die, with a score of 1 indicating scenario 7, a 2 selecting scenario 8, a 3 choosing scenario 9, and so on. The sides for each turn can be selected randomly, but a viable alternative is for the victor of the previous game to decide whether he or she wants to play Red or Blue in the next scenario. We can for example assume that the campaigners in question start off by playing a game from scenario 1–6: a 3 is rolled on the die, and scenario 3 played accordingly, with the Blue player winning. The next game is from scenarios 7–12; a die roll of 5 indicates scenario 11, and the erstwhile Blue player, having a penchant for attacking, chooses to play Blue again in the Surprise Attack scenario. Allowing the victor to decide which side to choose in the next game owes a great deal to military logic; the winner would undoubtedly have the advantage over the loser in real life, and would therefore be able to seize the initiative in the next encounter. A campaign of five games will last a full day, or two evening sessions.

This style of wargames campaign is very basic, but can be completed quickly and easily. The players’ enjoyment of such contests can be greatly enhanced by composing a narrative history of the affair, which adds character to the occasion. Wargamers are encouraged to give their tabletop generals suitable names, be they historical characters such as Napoleon or Wellington, favourite writers or sporting heroes, or even their own surnames suitably adapted. My own name is for example fine in British or French armies, but can easily become ‘von Thomas’ for a Germanic force or ‘Thomassov’ for a Russian contingent’s commander. The battles can be described in suitably lurid detail, and credibility enhanced by composing an appropriate linking narrative to contextualize them. For example, in the previous case where scenario 3 was followed by scenario 11, the campaign storyline could read something like this:

‘Having defeated General Prince Turgenev at the battle of River Zola, Count Stendhal’s forces pressed home their advantage by attempting to seize Pushkin’s Crossroads before Turgenev could organize a response.’

The eventual result will be a full account which, if augmented with artistically rendered maps of the battles in progress, provides a satisfying memento of an enjoyable series of wargames. They can even be used as a spur to campaign design: in reflecting upon the events of the previous game, the players can consider which scenario would be most appropriate to play next, through exercising military logic. This will in the long run encourage the design instincts of players, allowing what started as a very basic campaign to develop into a rich experience as the two belligerent powers (and their assorted generals) acquire a character all of their own. In this way, simplicity leads to the sort of creativity that could be absent from a dauntingly complex campaign – and with creativity comes the originality and enthusiasm that only the best wargames can generate.